tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64455226797982453752018-03-19T12:07:00.383-07:00DenialDepotThe world's most factual blog on global warming and climate changeInfernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-72165861497274985902016-05-27T16:10:00.000-07:002016-05-27T16:14:57.782-07:00Never believe the Official Story<div><br /></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gxp5dM9fv2M/V0jNVkMKAzI/AAAAAAAAAGE/uJB0cwW_kJIzlyNjT7TISPV_M-5AEhfrQCLcB/s1600/potato.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="potatoes" border="0" height="425" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gxp5dM9fv2M/V0jNVkMKAzI/AAAAAAAAAGE/uJB0cwW_kJIzlyNjT7TISPV_M-5AEhfrQCLcB/s640/potato.jpg" title="" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; text-align: start;">"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period"&nbsp;</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">- Michael Crichton</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">Michael Crichton is of course famous for authoring a book that correctly predicted the Jurassic Park disaster before it happened and long before they made a movie about it.</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">While the scientists were busy in their labs playing with dinosaur jeans, a science author who understood science better than any scientist ever could predicted the theory that&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">life always finds a way and that velociraptors&nbsp;would learn how to use door handles.</span></span></span></div><div><div><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Ivory Towers</b></h3><div><b><br /></b></div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">As soon as Neil deGrasse Tyson mocked the idea the Earth was flat I knew the geometry of the Earth to be in doubt. A quick google confirmed my suspicion and I have since discovered dozens of bloggers out there documenting numerous problems with the official theory. If there really was overwhelming evidence that the Earth was round why would Neil deGrasse Tyson be mocking the idea that it was flat?</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">The consensus, AKA the official story, can never be trusted, because trust no-one. Always suspect They are out to get you. That way if they are you at least weren't fooled. That's why I will never t</span><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">rust textbooks. Science textbooks and history textbooks in particular are full of official stories written by official writers. </span></span></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">O</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">nly when textbooks are written by the uneducated (ie free thinking) bloggers of the internet with ideas that scientists openly deride will I take textbooks seriously.</span><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">At the center of every university is a tower made of ivory. These towers are probably in excess of 80 feet tall.&nbsp;</span>Question: from such a height why haven't academics noticed the lack of curvature of the Earth? Just a question, nothing more. Unlike the Earth the best arguments are circular, that way there are no loose ends.</div></div><div><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Evidence</b></h3><div><b><br /></b></div>The Oxford Dictionary proclaims evidence to be&nbsp;<i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-family: &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; line-height: 18.2px;">The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid</span>"</span></i><br /><i><br /></i>I have made the font of that quote quite small because I don't want to honor such arrogance with any sort of presence. Who writes the dictionaries? Officials from Oxford who proclaim their book-bound definitions of words are true by consensus. Dictionaries, like libraries are synonymous with "education", the concept that truth can be learned rather than imagined.<br /><br />Evidence is really defined as anything <i>they</i>&nbsp;don't want us to know. Examples of evidence include:<br /><ul><li>Bits of old email</li><li>Birth certificates</li><li>Anything released by FOIA&nbsp;</li><li>Original photos of the moon found on some obscure NASA sub domain which <i>they </i>have probably accidentally released</li><li>Anything that was on a government website one day but has suddenly "disappeared" the next, especially if it involves sea ice</li></ul>In other words the more difficult data is to obtain or obscure the source, the greater the weight of evidence it provides for alternative theories.</div><div><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Alternative Theories</b></h3></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div>Perhaps global temperature changes are caused by steam pipes, or undersea volcanoes, could cloud experiments at CERN have opened up a black hole from all that science stuff they keep doing with colanders? It makes sense that a black hole would absorb more sunlight. Could that explain the minuscule amount of warming of which there is no evidence for? What if there never was a global temperature because you can't average temperature over a globe? What if the concept of averaging is number fraud? What if there can't be a global temperature because the world isn't a globe? That might explain why scientists are so keen on us accepting the world is round, because their climate models are programmed that way and they are too lazy to correct them. Sometimes there is a second shooter, and sometimes it is just a ploy to take away our guns.</div></div><div><br /></div>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com128tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-77856552579682086752016-04-10T03:13:00.001-07:002016-04-10T03:29:13.517-07:004. The oceans are already absorbing almost all the moisture they canHere's why it's possible that all the ice in the world melting won't make much difference.<br /><br />The water that’s already in the oceans absorbs most of the moisture it can. H2O only “soaks up” its favorite molecules of water, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more water from molecules that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over atoms at the right moisture. In other words the effectiveness of water as a liquid becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2B6K15f1zfk/Vwoq76UC1jI/AAAAAAAAAFw/l78Vv1V_WocERufty2SIyq2QVLL4DCBMg/s1600/buckets2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2B6K15f1zfk/Vwoq76UC1jI/AAAAAAAAAFw/l78Vv1V_WocERufty2SIyq2QVLL4DCBMg/s1600/buckets2.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>The natural increase in sea level is real, but it’s already reached its peak performance.<br /><br />This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra bucket of healthy H2O, a life giving liquid not a pollutant.<br /><br />When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: It’s true that water has some sea level raising effect, but it’s also true that extra water doesn’t have the same effect. When alarmists point out that the natural melting of ice sheets causes “X meters of sea level rise,” they usually fail to mention that the first 100 buckets of water does almost all of this, and no extra 100 bucket addition will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.<br /><br /><br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-69963783782894032152016-03-26T04:32:00.002-07:002016-04-07T20:45:58.968-07:00ICE AGE CONFIRMED<b><span style="color: red;">STAGGERING</span></b> GROWTH IN ARCTIC ICE. <b><span style="color: blue;">COLD WEATHER</span></b> LEADS TO WINTER ARCTIC ICE GROWTH. TRAJECTORY <b><span style="color: red;">DEFIES CLIMATE MODELS</span></b> THAT PREDICT LESS ICE OVER TIME NOT MORE.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;"><b>ICE AGE BY SEPTEMBER?&nbsp;</b></span><b><span style="color: blue;">MEDIA BLACKOUT</span></b><br /><br />From the I-Told-You-So files* comes this important piece of news. Thanks to Steven Goddard for the heads up.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UadKZZ6Tlng/VvZsmFD3TbI/AAAAAAAAAFA/ffUd_sY5Wk8-QGHXZuDHY_sazTMq8gIig/s1600/seaice.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UadKZZ6Tlng/VvZsmFD3TbI/AAAAAAAAAFA/ffUd_sY5Wk8-QGHXZuDHY_sazTMq8gIig/s640/seaice.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />Something tells me we won't be hearing about this in the media or in any of Obama's speeches.<br /><br />Another thing I noticed:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qIfZ4s5EMhk/VvZtpxzSFYI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/Rf22VrzyyDESWU2pgcDsz3sDdAzAHRtMw/s1600/hmmm.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qIfZ4s5EMhk/VvZtpxzSFYI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/Rf22VrzyyDESWU2pgcDsz3sDdAzAHRtMw/s320/hmmm.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />This appears very much to be a menu button. Let me explain to you how these work. A menu button is a piece of technology designed to always display a menu when they are clicked on. But if you click on the University of Illinois menu button in the above image no menu appears. Go on, try moving your mouse over it and clicking, it does nothing except making the image larger.<br /><br />Software engineers are not like climate scientists, they have to make sure the computer programs they write work all the time, every time, and so they learn to never make mistakes. So I have to assume that someone at the University of Illinois has deliberately sabotaged the menu button. I wonder why.<br /><br /><b>What could be on the hidden menu?</b><br /><br />Perhaps the menu contains links to scientist's emails which They don't want made public. Perhaps there is an option to display the real undoctored sea ice data that are being hidden from us. Or perhaps the button is just another one of Lewandowsky's little traps to try and falsely paint us as conspiracy theorists. Yes I can well imagine Stephan Lewandowsky meeting with suited UN figures at the Paris COP21 in a closed meeting room, discussing a demented form of button over taxpayer funded mugs of hot coffee. A button that can be deployed onto websites that will capture not only the imagination of climate skeptics, but also their IP addresses which are subsequently loaded into a database named agenda21.<br /><br />Someone more proficient at being unethical than me should probably try to hack that button and find out what is behind it.<br /><br />If not I sense an FOIA request in the making.<br /><br />*These are actual files I keep in my house, in a large binder.<br /><br /><b>Update:</b>&nbsp;A commenter, now banned, has kindly pointed out that a button in a copied image from a website isn't necessarily going to work when copied onto a blog. While this may potentially explain why the menu button doesn't work, I stand by my comments and the general thrust of my argument remains. I would think the University of Illinois should really put a disclaimer on their website pointing out that buttons will not work when an image is taken. This kind of lack of attention to detail is becoming a hallmark of climate science.<br /><br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-57289747738347719842016-02-19T13:56:00.001-08:002016-02-19T14:00:15.551-08:00Top 10 Tricks to Find That Temperature Trend You Always Dreamed Of<h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>1) What is a trend?</b></h2><br />A trend is a line you can cross through a graph to make the science go away. You can use a nice thick pen or an electronic paint brush to do this. Trend lines have been a key resource in the battle against data.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1XG_m8bT0oI/VseNBxdsT9I/AAAAAAAAAEw/lbtgTHVCMnU/s1600/itgone.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1XG_m8bT0oI/VseNBxdsT9I/AAAAAAAAAEw/lbtgTHVCMnU/s400/itgone.png" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Cross out that data and it no longer counts</i></div><br /><h2><b>2) I saw a graph I don't like. Can I cross it out?</b></h2><br />Yes, but you have to be careful. You can't just put any old line through it. It has to be a very specific and carefully chosen line. If you draw a trend line through data incorrectly you might inadvertently make the data appear alarming. Most trends in data these days are alarming, so if you don't know what you are doing you seriously risk making the data look worse. Trend divination is a skilled art. You need to be adequately trained in the ways of blog science and scientific obstructionism before you can begin crossing out graphs at will. When in doubt defer to the professionals, some of us are paid to do this kind of thing afterall.<br /><h2><br /><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>3) How many possible trend lines are there?</b></h2><div><b><br /></b></div>A lot. Of different lengths and gradients through different types of data. Far too many in my opinion, reflecting the ridiculous size of the federal government.<br /><br /><h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>4) Okay, so how do I carefully choose a trend line?</b></h2><div><b><br /></b></div>You need to be well aware of what makes a good trend and what makes a bad trend. Bearing this in mind the choice can nevertheless be quite fiddly at times; imagine if you will picking a small fruit off a tree. You don't want to pick any old fruit, you want to pick the best one you can.<br /><br /><h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>5) &nbsp;What makes a good trend line?</b></h2><div><b><br /></b></div>Long flat trends are good. Steep trends are always bad. If in doubt, remember the rythme: Long and low, taxes no. Steep and high, freedom bye. Imagine a trend line being a bit like a low bridge spanning an alarming ravine, which will in effect make it less alarming. You want to find the longest flattest line you can.<br /><h3></h3><h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>6) So I have my trend, what do I do now?</b></h2><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />If you find a good trend you need to parade it before to your local media, while reciting its properties over and over. How long is it? I have a big one, mine is 18 years and 11 months long. This proves nothing has happened for almost 19 years.</span><br /><h2><br /><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>7) What happens if your trend goes short</b></h2><br />Even the best trend will on occasion suddenly go short. This seems to happen roughly every 5 years or so, meaning there is absolutely no trend in the breaking of trends. If you are inexperienced you might panic and question the validity of your method when you wake up to find your treasured 19 year trend fallen. But once you get good at this you will be able to simply advance the beginning of the trend forwards a few years and trawl the news for excuses. El Nino, communists, Obama. All these things are valid reasons to cite.<br /><h2><br /><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>8) What if I can't find a trend that works?</b></h2><br />Sometimes try as you might you just can't find a sufficiently long flat trend to make a scientific record go away. This is a sure sign that particular scientific record must be fraudulent, even if you swore by it before. True data will always conform with political reality. Perhaps it is time to check scientists emails and investigate their NetFlix accounts to see what movies they've been watching.<br /><h3></h3><h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>9) Where can I find good trends?</b></h2><br />These days I find I am only satisfied with a good lower troposphere satellite trend. That said there are some fantastic up and coming trends on other planets where we have little to no data.<br /><br /><h2><b><br /></b></h2><h2><b>10) What does it mean for a trend line to be "not significantly different from zero"?</b></h2><br />Statistical significance is a concept invented by statisticians in order to prove nothing alarming can ever happen. If a trend is not statistically significant from zero it means the trend is 100% confirmed to be exactly zero and therefore our taxes, if there must be taxes, would be better spent elsewhere.<br /><br />As an example imagine Bob sets out from home one morning to go to work. He travels either East or West. Because we don't know in which direction he has gone, or how far he travelled, this proves he hasn't left the house.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com51tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-34914023915324769112016-01-16T04:30:00.000-08:002016-01-16T04:33:22.269-08:00The Vineyards of Vostok<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WAUFiyFLP4Y/VpQlzCIRUsI/AAAAAAAAAEA/OhJh0jz3ICE/s1600/chardonnay-vineyards-1513203.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WAUFiyFLP4Y/VpQlzCIRUsI/AAAAAAAAAEA/OhJh0jz3ICE/s640/chardonnay-vineyards-1513203.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Photo of an Antarctic Vineyard, reconstructed from a French Vineyard proxy</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zEJKnbWJEhc/VpQkQ1xtWYI/AAAAAAAAAD0/O4Ggp7aJbU8/s1600/Vikings_Warfare01_full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zEJKnbWJEhc/VpQkQ1xtWYI/AAAAAAAAAD0/O4Ggp7aJbU8/s320/Vikings_Warfare01_full.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Vikings fighting on the Antarctic Peninsula. Note the lack of sea ice.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Long ago the world was a much warmer place; The oceans boiled at the equator and griffin were seen flying as far North as Lancaster. Less well known are the Vikings, a fierce people from Northern Europe who travelled the world in ridiculously long boats, performing various acts that would ultimately derail the globull warming gravy train, including:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><ol><li>Putting the word Green in Greenland to prove it had no ice whatsoever back then</li><li>Setting up vineyards all over the Earth to demonstrate how warm it was everywhere</li><li>Plundering the abbeys of the global warming high priests</li><li>Sodding off back to Denmark when it got cold, therefore proving how hot it must have been in the first place</li></ol><div><b>Reconstructing the past</b></div><div>The Vikings also left us a variety charts and temperature records from that era. Below is a copy of a Viking temperature record spanning approximately 1000 years. To my mind this is the kind of graph I want to believe in. I have no idea the methodology by which the Vikings recorded temperature, nor do I really care. Lets not ruin a good chart by asking questions.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iLRFtExqtnA/Vpor3HBy7rI/AAAAAAAAAEc/iATFvlgbMzQ/s1600/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iLRFtExqtnA/Vpor3HBy7rI/AAAAAAAAAEc/iATFvlgbMzQ/s400/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Viking temperature graph<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Fun fact: We wouldn't even know about this graph if They hadn't published it in the original IPCC report by mistake. The graph was pulled from subsequent IPCC reports by order of Al Gore himself, proving how sneaky and meticulous They are at controlling what They release.</div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>So what's the problem?</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There isn't one, I don't see one. The climate always changes, that's what it does. Up, down, left, right, in, out, etc. If the world was now as warm as NASA claim the Vikings would have already returned by now. As it stands the silence of the Vikings speaks volumes.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">IF there is one thing history teaches us it is that warmer periods are better for mankind than colder periods. The warmth of the so-called Dark Ages saw humanity thrive, for example, unlike the much colder and unfavorable later period known as the Enlightenment that saw nothing but stagnation.</div>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com188tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-26645815081119730032016-01-10T07:05:00.003-08:002016-01-10T07:18:43.934-08:00There has been an Awakening<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QdpZHOJVQOw/VpJ0LRnxjZI/AAAAAAAAADc/4RNHT8YCTr4/s1600/volcanoes1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QdpZHOJVQOw/VpJ0LRnxjZI/AAAAAAAAADc/4RNHT8YCTr4/s320/volcanoes1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Mauna Loa, a desolate and windswept volcanic island located deep within the Pacific ocean. This is the mountain stronghold housing the last remnants of the climate science cabal. Beneath it's smoking slopes exists a vast labyrinth of laboratories, housing monolithic computers upon which an army of climate scientists endlessly toil, committing various arcane and blasphemous adjustments to raw data in a desperate bid to topple the global economy.</div><div>For over a decade the island has been relatively quiet, smoking ever so slightly. This era of peace was known as the Pause. But now rumor grows of a shadow in the Pacific. I&nbsp;fear a great El Nino may have stirred the island a little too much and woken up those who dwell within, driving them to fiddle data as never before.</div><div><b>Evidence, if you need it</b></div><div>I came to this realization last Thursday around lunchtime, as I was checking over some dusty old excel spreadsheets. I was horrified to find various climate records had turned alarming.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CUwjXs210tY/VpJ0TzRatfI/AAAAAAAAADk/_RmxXuWde4Y/s1600/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CUwjXs210tY/VpJ0TzRatfI/AAAAAAAAADk/_RmxXuWde4Y/s320/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png" width="320" /></a></div>The above chart purports to show the annual increase of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa itself. Whether carbon dioxide even exists at all is of course debatable, atoms being nothing more than a theory, but for the data to display 2015 as having the largest annual CO2 increase on record is unacceptably alarmist.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4H7XDnby6Q4/VpJshQBw3EI/AAAAAAAAADE/3O8C2yAhltQ/s1600/sealevel.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4H7XDnby6Q4/VpJshQBw3EI/AAAAAAAAADE/3O8C2yAhltQ/s320/sealevel.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hd6dNrZLk3o/VpJsizWDMzI/AAAAAAAAADM/G5vydycWzdk/s1600/heat_content55-07.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hd6dNrZLk3o/VpJsizWDMzI/AAAAAAAAADM/G5vydycWzdk/s320/heat_content55-07.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Above: Records of sea level and ocean heat also show recent highs. An observer untrained in the ways of blog science might even make the mistake of thinking the pause never happened.</span></div><div><b>A possible solution to the madness</b></div><div>I have theorized that if we could somehow bring the 1988 testimony of James Hansen to the volcanic peak of Mauna Loa and drop it into the fiery bowels of the infernal mountain itself, we would finally end the reign of Al Gore for good. It would be an arduous and perilous quest for some brave blog scientists, for Mauna Loa is said to be circled by predator drones controlled by the all seeing eye of Obama. Even more dangerous however is the corrupting nature of logic and facts. The person we send would have to carefully chosen, someone who possesses an inate immunity to reason. I would volunteer to do this myself, but I have been drinking a lot of wine lately and plan to drink quite a bit more.</div>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-55874838024135963682012-11-28T13:46:00.001-08:002012-11-28T13:47:34.849-08:00The Disputed Cause of Rising CO2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-oFme-5kNKo/SeY--y7y7dI/AAAAAAAAAAk/hQJZPm-xwpc/s320/sun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-oFme-5kNKo/SeY--y7y7dI/AAAAAAAAAAk/hQJZPm-xwpc/s640/sun.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i>Just a few years ago your eyes would have literally burned out from looking directly at this image. Today it is safe only because the Ice Age is coming.</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There has been a recent upsurge of interest&nbsp;in denying humans are causing CO2 levels to rise. To help I thought I would type a quick cheat sheet for aspiring climate deniers.</div><br /><b>Things That Must Not Be Blamed For Rising CO2</b><br /><ol><li><b>Human fossil fuel emissions</b></li></ol><b>Things That Can Be Blamed Instead</b><br /><ol><li><b>Mauna Loa</b>. A Big Volcano where scientists deliberately measure CO2.</li><li><b>Underwater Volcanoes</b>. Scientists admit they haven't even found Atlantis yet so how can they possibly know how many CO2 spewing volcanoes are underwater?</li><li><b>Global Warming</b>. Ice cores show the CO2 rise is caused by warming (remember to temporarily accept the validity of ice cores and the global temperature records).</li><li><b>ENSO</b>. Same way the Moon causes sea level rise.</li><li><b>The Oceans</b>. The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Just make sure not to mention how much they absorb.&nbsp;</li><li><b>The Chinese</b>. If the Chinese did it no-one can <strike>tax</strike>&nbsp;blame us.</li><li><b>Mars. </b>CO2 from Mars's frozen ice caps have melted and are slowly seeping through the aether into Earth's atmosphere.</li><li><b>The Sun. </b>That burning Sun must give off a lot of&nbsp;<span style="font-weight: normal;">exhaust fumes.</span></li></ol><div>Why not use a few of these on your favorite blog? Why not use them all? They are all just as good.</div>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com271tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-61382285564251956652012-10-20T07:19:00.003-07:002012-10-20T07:24:35.265-07:00A New Theory of Climate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/pgf_zps5d7ff944.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/pgf_zps5d7ff944.png" width="216" /></a></div><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">"</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif;">Stop drinking the Kool Aid and learn how the Earths temperatures are controlled in the Book "Pyramid Gravity Force" available on Amazon, find out how mans penetration&nbsp;in Cheops the great pyramid of Giza, disabled the great pyramid of Giza which controlled the Hawaiian Island&nbsp;volcanic&nbsp;activity. Yes the Giza pyramid was the Earths thermostat until crazy humans broke it, read how the Earth has missed a few crucial mini ice ages and how we have a chance of saving the planet by getting the Giza pyramids back on line. Ancient Geo Engineering is real......And we still have a chance to save planet earth from the masive tectonic plate movement that are coming to blast us all into the stone age. Regardless of why the temperature rises on planet Earth, The pyramids are here to cool the planet down. These Earthquakes are just the beginning................"</span></span><br /><a href="http://www.pyramidgravityforce.com/">http://www.pyramidgravityforce.com/</a><br /><br />Say what you will about the theory, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than Al Gores CO2 Tax Theory.&nbsp;Because they can't stand challenges climate scientists have systematically omitted any discussion of the Pyramid Gravity Force from the IPCC report.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html">The IPCC report's supposedly exhaustive list of climate forcings</a>&nbsp;fails to mention the Pyramid Gravity Forcing. Even though it is a man-made forcing the corrupt IPCC is loathe to accept the idea because it's shadowy&nbsp;puppet-masters&nbsp;can't levy taxes for it. The solution of shutting the Giza pyramid door to fix climate change is too simple and can't be used as an excuse for world government.<br /><br />The book cover shows<i>&nbsp;"how the gravity beam travels from the Great pyramid of Giza to the Hawaiian Island via ricocheting off of the gravity neutral zone near the solid iron core at the center of the planet."</i><br /><i><br /></i>Makes sense to me. A quick fact check confirms there is an Island in Hawaii so this appears to pass preliminary examination.&nbsp;The Pyramid Gravity Force theory of climate is just one of many equally valid theories of climate that are springing up every day to challenge Mann-made Globebull Warming. They are all just as likely. How confusing.&nbsp;<i>We can't possibly understand how climate works if there are so many competing theories!</i>&nbsp;All theories of climate should be taught in schools as equal and let the children decide which one they want to believe. Maybe turn off the heat in one of the classrooms and tell the kids if they want to believe in Al Gore's theory that warming is bad they will have to sit in the cold room.<br /><br />Note I am not saying the Pyramid Gravity Forcing theory is necessarily true. All I am seeking to do is to spread doubt and confusion about the cause of climate change under the guise of "exploring different theories" while disassociating myself from the theories I advocate in order to maintain deniability, and no I am not copying WUWT, I thought of this plan myself.<br /><br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com224tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-22719594563581166092012-09-30T10:15:00.002-07:002012-09-30T10:20:28.711-07:00Ice Age Alert: Unprecedented Arctic Sea Ice Freeze In Progress<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Arctic Sea Ice Increases Past FOUR MILLION Square Kilometers For The First Time Since Records Began!</b></span><br /><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/sii_zpsf6eadda6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="332" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/sii_zpsf6eadda6.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><h3><b>Unprecedented 4 MILLION Sqkm Benchmark Smashed!</b></h3><div><br />Never before has Arctic Sea Ice increased from below 4 million square kilometers to above 4 million square kilometers. Will the mainstream media now correct their discredited claims made just a month ago that the Arctic is melting?</div><br /><h3><b>IPCC Didn't See It Coming! They Expected Melt! Crisis Meeting with Al Gore.</b></h3><br />IPCC big wigs will be in crisis talks with Al Gore&nbsp;tonight&nbsp;as Arctic Sea Ice unexpectedly froze past 4 million square kilometers for the first time in history according to Japanese Data<span style="font-size: xx-small;"> [1]</span>. The new data reveals the Earth to be in a Cooling Mode and undermines Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is revealed to be&nbsp;based on nothing less than the recently discredited Laws of Thermodynamics.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">DenialDepot is officially sounding an <b>Ice Age Alert</b>&nbsp;for all Northern Hemisphere countries.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: large;">In the next 4 months: Expect Colder Temperatures than you've experienced in the last 4 months.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: large;">If you or your family live in the following countries <b>B</b><b>e Prepared</b>.</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size: large;">United States of America</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Canada</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Europe</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Norway</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">New Zealand</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">USSR</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>How You Can Prepare For An Ice Age</b></span></div><div><ul><li><span style="font-size: large;">Wrap up Warm.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Build a Bunker.&nbsp;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Keep reading Denial Depot for Ice Age Alert updates.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Lobby your congressman to reduce taxes and relax regulations on banks and industry.</span></li></ul></div><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmdsagdfg">data source</a></span>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com230tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-59241994597336320012012-09-15T10:32:00.002-07:002012-09-15T11:23:52.479-07:00Ice Age Is Coming<br />Sea ice is quite topical at the moment. How is sea ice doing?<b><br /></b><br /><br /><h3><b>The Antarctic</b></h3><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/iceageiscoming.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="376" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/iceageiscoming.png" width="640" /></a></div><i>Source: Cryosphere Today. University of Illinois</i><br /><br />Reliable Antarctic sea ice data indicates that we will have another Catastrophic Ice Age this winter. So much for the proven myth of Global Warming [1]. It's now time to raise the alarm and inform your neighbors and work colleagues that Global Cooling is coming. If we act fast enough we can possibly make sure governments around the world do absolutely nothing.<br /><br /><h3><b>The Arctic</b></h3><br />In contrast nothing remarkable is happening in the Arctic. There's been some melting this summer but that's expected. Arctic Sea Ice melts all the time, it's perfectly normal. For example I remember when the Vikings surfaced a longboat at the North Pole in 1955 and fought a pitched battle with a 15th century Chinese Navy.<br /><br />Lets start with what we DON'T know. Science is FULL of uncertainties. The uncertainty monster. Like most monsters, the uncertainty monster is a very reassuring thing to have around. To cut to the chase: we know absolutely nothing that could be used to increase taxes. So what DO we know?<br /><ul><li>Preventable Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (PCAGW) is a myth invented by a cabal of New World Order politicians plotting to achieve a communist utopia [1].</li><li>The world is in a steep Global Cooling trend and heading for another Ice Age this winter.</li><li>Arctic sea ice is fine. Thick and healthy and highly resistant to the imposition of taxes.</li></ul>I took a brief look at the Arctic sea ice data and spotted a lot of downward trends had appeared in the data recently. That can only mean systematic fraud. So like any Blog Scientist I had to find something wrong with the data.<br /><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate</b><b><br /></b></h3><br />Arctic Ice Satellite Fraud Gate is the catchy name I am giving to the latest scandal involving multiple instances of data manipulation at Cryosphere Today. For those of you who don't know, Cryosphere Today is a source of sea ice data which Alarmists use to claim the Arctic is melting and so cannot be trusted. If I can discredit Cryosphere Today it means the Arctic can't be melting.<br /><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Manipulation #1: The Stars Are Aligned</b></h3><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/manipulated.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/manipulated.png" width="640" /></a></div>The scientists thought they were being clever when they added the stars to the image. They thought it would make people believe the data was from a real satellite and not concocted in the lab like the rest of their faked science [1]. But like all government IPCC scientists they tried to be too clever and made a mistake. You see unlike me, climate scientists have no knowledge of astrology refuse to work with professional astrologers [1].<br /><br />This has further implications for climate "science". If the IPCC don't understand the movement of stars, how can they properly represent the strong starlight forcing in their climate models? If they've got the starlight forcing wrong it means that starlight can perhaps explain all of the warming of the 20th century. That is assuming there has been any warming in the 20th century (Phil Jones says no).<br /><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Manipulation #2: Arctic Sea Ice In The Red</b></h3><br /><br />We all know that Arctic sea ice is naturally a reflective white. So why do the satellite images on Cryosphere Today show that it's red or pink? Is it possible that IPCC scientists have deployed some sort of dye into the Arctic environment (the same environment they claim to want to protect) which turns the ice a red/pink color? This certainly fits with what I've read [1]. It seems there are only two options, either they admit their images are manipulated and the colors have been added in afterwards, or they admit they have sprayed the arctic red for some nefarious purpose.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/dyes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/dyes.png" width="374" /></a></div><i>Red and pink coloration of the ice in almost dye-like patterns. Hmm..</i><br /><br />Why would they want to turn the ice red? I never pretend to have all the answers, only that I can obtain them within 24 hours. To this end I have been in deep discussions about this subject with several chemtrail experts and they assure me it would be possible, if not entirely expected, for the government to spray red dyes from jet planes flying over the Arctic ("Exactly where no-one is around to see them doing it", one expert told me). As for the motive, I am sure it's an attempt to melt the arctic to fit the IPCC's failed predictions. Everyone knows the color red is associated with heat (except when it's used to highlight the spot of interest in mineral promotions), so the dye is probably hot. If the Arctic does melt: just remember the scientists probably did it with their chemtrails and it wasn't CO2 and so taxes are unnecessary.<br /><h3><b><br /></b></h3><h3><b>Manipulation #3: No Clouds</b></h3><br />Having decided to poison the Arctic with red dyes and photo-shop fake stars into an image, it's perhaps not surprising that climate "scientists" would take the next step of entirely stripping all the clouds from satellite images. Okay sure, maybe the 14th of September was just a cloudless day you might say, but I audited a whole <b>3 months</b> of Cryosphere Today images and saw not a single cloud. That's IMPOSSIBLE!<br /><br />Climate scientists dislike clouds because clouds contradict their PCAGW myth [1]. If there are clouds then everything is fine [2]. The most likely explanation is that they are so used to deleting clouds from Climate Models that they deleted them from satellite images too without thinking.<br /><h3></h3><h3>Conclusion</h3><br />The arctic is fine.<br /><br /><b><br /></b><b>References</b><br />[1] See Climategate.<br />[2] See Lindzen.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com264tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-60117621669580262332012-08-29T16:33:00.000-07:002012-08-29T16:52:33.290-07:00Arctic Sea Ice DownfallThe alarmists have reached a new record low. One of them sent me a video outrageously comparing Blog Scientists to Nazi's - and not just any Nazis either, but high ranking Nazis. It seems the eco-fascists in desperation are having to resort to add homs.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ARJK0MWAITM" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />I am currently busy focusing exclusively on Antarctic sea ice. Unfortunately I won't have time to take a look at how Arctic sea ice is doing until late October.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com348tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-17075819485263907722012-06-30T03:05:00.000-07:002012-06-30T03:06:11.122-07:00The Double Recovery of Arctic Sea Ice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/seaice.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="323" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/seaice.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Just two months ago we learned that <b>Arctic Sea Ice Is Normal For The First Time In At Least Seven Years</b></div><a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/nsidc-arctic-ice-extent-normal-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-seven-years/">http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/nsidc-arctic-ice-extent-normal-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-seven-years/</a><br /><br />Now we are told that Arctic Sea Ice is the lowest on record for the time of year.<br /><a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/">http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</a><br /><br /><b>Just what is going on?</b> <br />Lets ignore what the so-called "scientists" say and look instead to the wealth of knowledge Blog Science has built up about Arctic sea ice over the years:<br /><br /><b>Watt's Law: </b>A record low in Arctic ice is a sign that a Recovery has begun. Such an event occurred in summer 2007.<br /><br /><b>Goddard's Law: </b>If arctic sea ice reaches normal levels it is clear proof that a recovery is in progress.<br /><br /><b>The Monckton Conjecture: </b>Arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade.<br /><br />So we can see that normal levels of ice in April means that The Recovery since 2007 is progressing well. The more recent record low is a sign that a <b>new</b> recovery has begun (watt's law). So we now have <b>two</b> Arctic sea ice recoveries running in parallel and amplifying each other through solar magneto-reluctance. This is <i>very</i> inconvenient for IPCC alarmists and their communist handlers.<br /><br /><b>Prediction</b><br />Arctic sea ice will now recover double fast. It may even melt out completely in a coming summer and thus initiate a third recovery which will be the final nail in the coffin of man-made global warming.<br /><br /><i><br /></i>Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com552tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-16407340497434473722012-05-31T09:36:00.000-07:002012-05-31T09:57:41.886-07:00Summer Shattered: No Warming Since February<a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/nowarming.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="540" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/nowarming.png" width="640" /></a><br /><br />IPCC "scientists" predict that every year there should be a period known as "Summer" in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC prediction is for 3C/month warming between February and May:<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/ipccpredict.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/ipccpredict.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But inconveniently for Micheal Mann the temperature this year in 2012 has been flat between February and the beginning of May:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/flat.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/flat.png" /></a></div>That's almost three months without any increase in temperature. This clearly falsifies the theories of climate scientists and means we should ignore anything they say. If you disagree then please stare without blinking at these lines until it sinks in:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/howlong.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="467" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/howlong.png" width="640" /></a></div>The IPCC scientists' own graph above is very clear that they expected a smooth 6C increase in temperature between February and May which just hasn't happened. Is it a coincidence that the 2007 IPCC report doesn't mention anything about the inconvenient 2012 temperature data?<br /><br />Alarmists will try to wriggle out of this by saying "blah blah blah three months is not long enough", "blah blah blah noise", "blah blah blah we are going to increase your taxes anyway", etc. I know all of their arguments - I have read most of the Internet, which is surely why Al Gore has turned down all my offers to debate him on Live TV at the Whitehouse. I even offered to waive half my usual fee.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Sidebar: When and When Not to Trust Data</span></b><br /><ul><li><b>DO</b> trust data when it is promoted by a trusted figure such as Laird Monckton, Dr Professor Ian Plimer, or anyone with Solar based climate theory.</li><li><b>DONT</b> trust data if it toes an IPCC line. We know the IPCC is always wrong so if data is compatible with man-made global warming in any way, it must be <b>political data</b> <b>with an agenda</b> and cannot be trusted.</li><li><b>DONT</b> trust nature. Nature itself will sometimes conspire with the alarmists and fabricate political data about itself. Even raw data can lie. For example some glaciers are in decline even though we should be entering an ice age. I have my suspicions that if nature could vote it would vote Obama.</li><li><b>DO</b> trust data if it contradicts the IPCC. Temperature data that exhibit a lack of warming can automatically be trusted and should be used immediately.</li><li><b>NEVER</b> trust supposed copies of Birth Certificates issued from Hawaii.</li></ul>In the case of the Central England Temperature record I would not normally trust data from the Hadley Center, but in this case the Central England Temperature record makes such a convenient argument that I stand 100% behind the data. In fact I trust it even more than the Hadley Center do as I strongly believe it represents not just Central England Temperature but Global Temperature. Not of course that I concede such a hypothetical climate "science" concept as "Global Temperature" exists, I don't. But global temperature is definitely dropping and taking us into a new ice age.<br /><br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com197tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-55754428020155073932012-05-06T08:30:00.001-07:002012-05-06T08:35:20.925-07:00What Consensus?<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Dozens Of Murderers Renounce Belief In Global Warming</b></span><br /><br />The UN Mandated theory of Global Warming received another set back today as dozens of murderers, who had previously accepted the theory, renounced their belief in Global Warming and signed a petition for inaction. <br /><br />&nbsp;It has long been a thorn in the side of climate deniers that so many murderers accept global warming, now the tables seem to be turning. "This is a wakeup call", said Professor Coal of the Heartless Institute, "with such an array of famous murderers rallying against the UN Greenhouse Theory of Gases, how can anyone claim the science is settled? We've even bagged the unabomber".<br /><br />The government response has been harsh. Almost all of the murderers on the list are either dead or have been imprisoned. "This is why we hide in the mountains - the UN are coming for us too", notes Professor Coal, "Osama Bin Laden's next video release was purported to denounce the 'infidel physics of the CO2 molecule', but it was never shown. His "Hide the decline" Pakistan tour was inadvertently canceled when President Obama ordered US Special Forces to assassinate him at the behest of the National Science Foundation.".<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Sunday Smear</span></b><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Time for the Sunday Smear by our in-house cartoonist Tosh. This week UN Science Types are literally exposed when their UN Gravy Train suffers a humiliating </span>derailment<span style="font-size: small;">. Perhaps it collided with Scientific Fact coming the other way?</span><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/subtle.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/subtle.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com192tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-7171621886395020232012-05-04T13:02:00.004-07:002012-05-04T13:06:44.855-07:00What Were They Thinking?!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/heartland_unabomber_billboard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/heartland_unabomber_billboard.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><b>For crying out loud, don't sign your name under it!&nbsp;</b><br /><br />Get SEPP or CSCDGC, or one of the other groups no-one gives a shit about to sign itInfernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-37171091046551694772012-04-29T09:24:00.000-07:002012-04-29T09:33:13.599-07:00<h2> <b>Global Warming A Hoax Say 7 Dwarfs</b></h2><br />7 Top Climate Experts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden this week criticizing the agency for advocating man-made CO2 as a major cause of climate change. NASA is increasingly finding itself under pressure as more world renowned experts speak out. Only last week 101 Dalmatians signed a petition calling for the mass resignation of all climate scientists and the 3 Musketeers are known to have concerns. Below is the letter in full.<br /><br />Dear NASA,<br /><br />We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies desist from communicating with the public. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are unsubstantiated and inconvenient, especially when considering CO2 is heavier than air and coal mining is great. With millions of well-known climate scientists and billions of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in catastrophic forecasts, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.<br /><br />At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.<br /><br />For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact the Coal Lobby Institute, the Union of Concerned Coal Miners, or others they can recommend to you.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />(Attached signatures)<br /><br />Dopey,<br />Sleazy,<br />Reckless,<br />Tricky,<br />Dirty,<br />Wasteful,<br />Doc (PhD)Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com66tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-31532594347774267262012-04-18T14:40:00.017-07:002012-04-18T15:38:42.063-07:00HadCRAP4In their latest bid to prop up the forever failed hypothesis of CAGW, Climate Alarmists have released a monstrosity they call "HadCRUT4". And here it is:<br /><br /><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 423px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-style:italic;">HadCRUT4 graph. Crown Copyright removed. Real science doesn't have copyrights. This graph is now mine. If the Queen has a problem with that she can take it up with 49 NASA Astronauts.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What is HadCRUT4?</span><br />Alarmists will tell you that HadCRUT4 is a global temperature record. This isn't entirely correct, as per usual you have to watch the thimble closely with these guys. The part they aren't telling you is that HadCRUT4 is yet another component in a global fraud perpetrated on the free world by a state-funded hierarchy of scientific gatekeepers and their political handlers at the behest of elite power-brokers in the helm of government who may or may not be representing an ancient race of reptiles which have enslaved man and plan to tax them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What is global temperature?</span><br />Global Temperature is a meaningless concept invented by alarmists. There is no such thing as "global temperature". I can pick holes in the concept all day and I do.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Is global warming caused by man?</span><br />No, the well documented increase in global temperature since the 19th century is entirely natural and wholesome. How do we know this? Because the warming started from a colder period. Therefore warming is logically just a recovery from the colder period. The alarmists would only have a point if the warming had started from a period warmer than today.<br /><br />Observe how the recovery line from the colder period is entirely wholesome and natural: <br /><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4b.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 423px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4b.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Is HadCRUT4 accurate?</span><br />No. It's completely untrustworthy IPCC data engineered to support man-made global warming. It has been authored by Phil Jones and may have even been touched by Michael Mann. It's totally wrong and unusable. I can show you photos of stations next to AC Units and suggestive photos of airports.<br /><br />Below I use HadCRUT4 to demonstrate remarkably precise natural cycles in the data which disprove man-made global warming. It turns out that once you've drawn a line through the middle of the data, <span style="font-style:italic;">some of the data is above the line and some is below</span>. This sensational finding means I can draw an up and down thingy over it. Up and down thingies are called Cycles:<br /><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4c.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 423px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4c.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-style:italic;">Rule of thumb: When constructing graphs it is best to use bright colors that clash. This way your point will literally burn itself into the readers' eyes.</span><br /><br />Is it a coincidence that the Sun in the sky sometimes goes up and sometimes it goes down? No it is not. The Sun is a natural cycle too, and is the likeliest candidate for explaining the similar up-downisms of the pink line.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Can We Trust My Result?</span><br />Yes. Fortunately the HadCRUT4 global temperature data is extremely accurate, even back to the early 20th century, which gives me confidence that my close cycle-fit to the data must be correct.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Predicting The Future</span><br />Now that we have established a tight relationship between Global Temperature and the Sun we have the ability to predict the future. Needless to say it's Very Not The IPCC:<br /><a href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4d.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 659px; height: 489px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut4d.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-style:italic;">The eagle eyed reader may have spotted the word "Taxes" next to the down arrow. This is an error, it should have read "Ice age". I was thinking about something else when I was drawing the down arrow.</span><br /><br />My advice to fellow climate deniers is to keep hammering away and remember the golden rule: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, well done you are getting better at fooling people."<br /><br />P.S: I know there is a burning question on every regular reader's mind. I didn't address this at the start of the post, so me take the opportunity to do so now: No, Al Gore still has not got back to be about the live debate and yes I have updated the blog slogan to "Denial Depot: The world's most factual blog on global warming and climate change". This result was determined by a web poll so must be true.<br /><br />P.S.S: There have been complaints about spammers in the comments. Spammers are part of the science too. Other blogs might censor comments but I refuse to. Besides clicking links in comment spam is how I do most of my shopping.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com223tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-77948307796671408052011-08-25T11:55:00.000-07:002011-08-25T12:38:05.516-07:00Black Knight to be Micheal Mann's next test<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/bkni.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 250px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/bkni.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>
<br />Climatologist Dr Micheal Mann remains undefeated despite a number of tests of his scientific integrity. The most recent of which, an investigation conducted by the National Science Foundation, concluded this week that <span style="font-style:italic;">"his work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field…. Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.“"</span>
<br />
<br />However climate deniers are not happy. They remain adamant that the real test of Dr Micheal Mann's scientific integrity still remains. "What we do is point to the next investigation", explained the blog scientist Inferno of DenialDepot. "All those previous investigations are all very well at the time we hype them up, but until we get the result we want the real test is always going to be the next one that hasn't happened yet."
<br />
<br />The next hurdle climate deniers have lined up for Micheal Mann is an investigation of his private email correspondence by American Tradition Institute lawyers. If he should survive that, then according to Inferno the next test has to be the Black Knight; "The black knight has only lost once so we are quite confident that Micheal Mann doesn't stand a chance", says Inferno.
<br />
<br />But is that confidence misplaced? After-all Dr Micheal Mann has now emerged victorious through a number of daunting challenges, including an investigation by his own university and the Bridge of Death.
<br />
<br />"Whitewashes", explained Inferno. "Don't get me started on the whole bridge of death fiasco. Basically it's a bridge that runs across the Gorge of Eternal Peril. The bridge-keeper asks three questions and if you get one wrong you are thrown in the Gorge. We'd planned it fine but then the gate-keeper asked Micheal Mann the <span style="font-style:italic;">wrong</span> questions."
<br />
<br />And if Micheal Mann should survive the ATI lawyers and the Black Knight? "Well", explained Inferno, "we'll get to see if he can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring"
<br />
<br />Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com236tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-12692284322628606532011-08-02T12:18:00.000-07:002011-08-02T12:29:59.015-07:00Satellite Temperature For July - looks like a really big wave before a large downturn<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_20112.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 300px;" src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_20112.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I did not expect the upturn of the past few months. It doesn’t make sense to me. The La Nina has relaxed, but there is no El Nino. The sun is more active, but still is quieter than usual. There have been some decent volcanic eruptions. I see no reason for the upturn to be so steep, and am not inclined to see CO2 as the cause...</span><br /><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/july-uah-global-temperature-up-slightly/#comment-710576">Commenter 'Caleb' at WUWT</a><br /><br />I am also not inclined to see CO2 as the cause. I prefer for it not to make sense than to accept it could be CO2. 'Celeb' does however offer a way of "interpreting" this inconvenient turn of events as evidence of cooling:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">When you are walking down a very foggy beach, how do you know a really big wave is coming, when you can’t see it? Is it not because the water draws back farther than usual? This upturn may just be the “water-drawing -back” before the “big wave” of a large downturn.</span><br /><br />So no matter if global temperature heads up or down it's always defying those so-called scientists. This is the kind of outside-the-box denial that Denial Depot is all about.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com60tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-21517589196683902012011-06-20T13:13:00.000-07:002011-06-20T14:47:09.674-07:00CO2: Volcanoes or Man? - It's your choice, not theirs<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/Kilauea-Volcano.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 300px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/Kilauea-Volcano.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Blog Science offers the public empowerment. No longer must we suffer years of "education" and be forced to bow down before peer appointed so-called "experts" as they cast down facts upon our heads.<br /><br />No, those are the old ways. Thanks to the Internet and Blog Science you can now become a science expert in a day and start generating your own science from scratch. You have the potential to be a world famous blog scientist, we all do. You might choose to become a blog chemist, a blog psychic or perhaps a blog geologist. All you need is a blog and a time to write down whatever your brain is thinking on the subject.<br /><br />And if you don't want to become an expert, Blog Science allows you to become a Blog Science commenter. You can even put this as BSc on your CV. Blog Science commenter is an important role that allows you cheer from the sidelines while boosting the impact rating of the Blog.<br /><br />Furthermore as a commenter, Blog Science offers you a wide catalog of ideas about the world and lets you choose which one you want to believe. That means you can choose whatever ideas fit in best with your political or religious beliefs. If you want we can also provide you with justifications for your choices if you are later challenged by practitioners of the old ways.<br /><br />For example I <span style="font-style:italic;">really</span> want to believe human CO2 emissions are too small to matter, and I <span style="font-style:italic;">will</span> find a way to justify that belief.<br /><br />A warmist blog, tauntingly calling itself "Open Mind", has just attacked Dr Ian Plimer, the 2nd most famous climate scientist in all of Australia*. Dr Ian Plimer's crime? He has chosen to believe volcanoes emit more CO2 than man, as is his right. He has also given generously this gift to the public.<br /><br />The warmists hate this kind of thing. They want everyone to follow the old ways. They want "geological societies" and "textbooks" to fix so-called "facts" in stone which must not be disobeyed by mere laypeople. They hate it when Blog Scientists offer their ideas in the press or on tour.<br /><br />In a comment over at Open Mind, William Connolley, the stoat in a boat, thinks he has found a great argument against Plimer:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"That volcanoes aren’t a major source can fairly trivially be shown by just looking at the CO2 record. If Pinatubo was a major source, there would be a sharp jump up when it erupted. But there isn’t."</span><br /><br />The words "can fairly trivially be shown" are a red flag. In Blog Science nothing is known with any degree of certainty because everything can be challenged.<br /><br />For example I would say the reason there is no sharp spike in CO2 when Pinatubo erupted is because scientists have been measuring CO2 on the <span style="font-style:italic;">wrong</span> volcano. They have been measuring CO2 levels on Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. This argument may or may not make sense, but it's confusing enough that it doesn't matter. In Blog Science justifying one's beliefs is as easy as making it sound like you have.<br /><br />Furthermore as has been pointed out craploads of times, scientists shouldn't be measuring CO2 inside the craters of volcanoes full stop! Yet still those so-called "scientist" elites march up the volcano each day in their lab coats with their equipment under their arms and and dip their co2ometers into the crater. With each passing year they dip the co2ometers a little deeper down so each year it looks like the CO2 level is rising!<br /><br />Of course what I have just said there may not be right - it probably isn't because it's just a story I made up - but it will sound like you know what you are talking about if you can go into details such as what Keeling ate for breakfast each morning. The use of imaginative stories to smear so-called "scientists" is encouraged in Blog Science. It adds entertainment as well as smear.<br /><br />What's interesting about Blog Science is the freedom it gives you. The old ways demanded adherence to a thing called "consistency". Blog Science does not unnecessarily restrict you in such a way.<br /><br />For example, it might tomorrow become expedient for me to accept rising CO2 is due to man. I might want, for example, to cite the merits of increasing levels of plant food to ward off the coming ice age. Or perhaps I just want to accuse warmists of using a strawman ("Of course I accept man is causing CO2 levels to rise. No-one denies that! What a strawman! The cause of CO2 rise is not the issue. What skeptics are questioning is whether CO2 rise has a warming effect!"). This doesn't mean I have to stop believing volcanoes emit more CO2 than man.<br /><br />And that's the memo.<br /><br />*High Admiral Lord Monckton, Child of the Mother of all Parliaments and Guardian of the Pink Portcullis, is the 1st most famous Climate Scientist in Australia of course.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com377tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-24072666137317991132011-06-19T05:41:00.000-07:002011-06-19T07:04:31.470-07:00Shock News: Dr Anthony Watts Turns Alarmist. Describes Human Interference in Climate as "Batshit Crazy", "a Powder-Keg" of "Unintended Consequences"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/chemtrails2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 540px; height: 250px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/chemtrails2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Professor Anthony Watts has betrayed the denialist cause this week by raising undue alarmist fears concerning man-made climate change. Talking on the subject of human modification of the climate on his blog, Professor Watt's announced:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">"it’s batshit crazy and a powder-keg for priming a global explosion of the law of unintended consequences."</span></span><br /><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/leaked-smoke-and-mirror-geoengineering-ideas-from-the-ipcc">(link)</a><br /><br />Please someone tell Professor Watts to calm down! We all know the burden of proof is on scientists to prove harm. The only evidence presented that human alteration of the radiative properties of the climate will cause any problems is climate models (aka computer games) and speculation. I am sure Professor Watts would be the first to recognize that these aren't sufficient grounds to argue that we must take action to prevent such human interference.<br /><br />Professor Watts use of the word "powder-keg" is deeply alarmist and implies that the atmosphere may explode. This is ridiculous, I do not appreciate his chicken-littlism on this subject by appealing to "unintended consequences" either. If unintended consequences were cause to avert an action we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning!<br /><br />Professor Watt's seems like a strong man. He can probably lift weights and I bet he always uses his real name online. So why is he seemingly so scared by a little atmospheric fiddling by man? Watts up with that?<br /><br />It may be that he simply slipped up, and in his zeal to attack an IPCC proposal he forgot the number #1 rule of climate denial which is to maintain denial of the risks of human influence on climate at all times. If that's the case I wonder if he's fit to be running the world's #1 blog. He must be approaching retirement age anyway. Maybe it's time for my blog to take over the reigns. I can't remember ever accidentally admitting there was a risk from human influence on climate.<br /><br />I have to stop typing now, but hopefully Judith Curry can pick the "should Dr Watts retire" ball up and string it along for a few more weeks.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com127tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-15737878098457641062011-06-11T17:01:00.000-07:002011-06-11T17:09:04.246-07:00Environmentalists Blamed for AZ Wildfires<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/imagecache/dv1/636_AZ_fire_AP.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 636px; height: 250px;" src="http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/imagecache/dv1/636_AZ_fire_AP.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">A raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.<br /><br />Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.<br /><br />Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.<br /><br />Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.<br /><br />The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.<br /><br />"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.<br /><br />In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."<br /><br />Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/arizona-wildfire/2011/06/10/environmentalists-blamed-az-wildfires">http://nation.foxnews.com/arizona-wildfire/2011/06/10/environmentalists-blamed-az-wildfires</a><br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />This story is nonsense of course. You can't attribute a single wildfire to man.<br /><br />Wildfires have occurred throughout history in natural cycles before man existed.<br /><br />It is arrogant to claim man can cause wildfires when nature is so much bigger than man.<br /><br />I personally blame the wildfires on the increase in CO2 plant food which has made these trees grow too big and dry.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com420tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-20994629099907335712011-04-13T12:39:00.000-07:002011-04-15T15:02:33.260-07:00Staggering Drop In Global Temperature<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/tempdown.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 579px; height: 293px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/tempdown.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-weight:bold;">WOW that's the biggest drop in global temperature EVER</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Note: Pay attention to the green line in the graph, NOT the red line. The red line will deceive you into thinking the world is warming. It's only there for purposes of illustration later. Please ignore it until then. </span><br /><br />The current temperature anomaly for March 2011 has just come in at -0.1C. That's MINUS 0.1C which is below the freezing point of water, so how can the arctic be melting?<br /><br />The total temperature drop highlighted by the green line is almost as great as the entire warming that occurred since 1900! So much for global warming then! If this continues we will enter an ice age next year!<br /><br />You might remember being told to focus on a similar drop and minus numbers in 2008. You might even remember how important that event was a sign of things to come. <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/06/uah-satellite-data-for-jan08-in-agreement-with-rss-data/">The eminent Joe Bastardi at the time described the 2007-2008 drop as</a> <span style="font-style:italic;">"straight out of the book of climate. The pattern is so much like the 1949-1950 La Nina, which was signaling the start of the reversal of the warming of the earth’s climate in the 1930s, ‘40s and early 50s. Only someone choosing to ignore it, or not wanting to see it, would not be cognizant of it."</span><br /><br />I couldn't find the book of climate at the library to confirm his claim, but it certainly rings true with what I want to believe. Besides when heavy weights like Piers Corbyn and David Archibald are predicting the world will cool in coming decades, who can argue?<br /><br />Anyway needless to say Bastardi was right. Temperature just kept falling after 2008 and now it's falling all over again! There was a briefly mild kind of slight flattish temperature bump in 2010, but that was just noise caused by an El Nino and entirely predictable. The current temperature drop however coincides with a La Nina and the last thing climate scientists expected to happen during a La Nina was for global temperature to fall! The cause of the drop is probably because the oceans have turned upside down due to something we experts call the PDO oscillation, which basically means an ice age is coming.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Side Bar: Trends and Noise</span><br /><br />The side bar is a feature I use to <s>stroke my ego</s> teach my readers the "dos" and "donts" of science. Previous side bars have explained precisely <a href="http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/warming-from-sun-is-roughly.html">why exponentials should not be used</a> and <a href="http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/12/cap-carbon-fraud-exposed.html">why data should never be plotted</a><br /><br />In this side bar I want to explain why the use of noise is preferable to longterm trends for predicting the future.<br /><br />The use of trends and noise is one of the main sources of statistical disagreement between deniers and alarmists. We of course consult professional statisticians whereas climate scientists don't. In their typical deceptive style warmists insist you should focus on irrelevant <span style="font-style:italic;">long term trends</span> in data rather than <span style="font-style:italic;">short term 'noise'</span>. For example in the graph above a long term trend is depicted by the red arrow, whereas they would insist the green line was just noise. Deniers like me point out that noise is more important than trends, after-all the green line is steeper than the red line and also going in the right direction.<br /><br />But perhaps the fairest way to arbitrate a scientific disagreement and build some bridges towards reconciliation at the same time is to check what God thinks. In this case God thinks the warmists are wrong, for if God didn't want our attention to be drawn to short term noises why did he build ears on the sides of our heads?<br /><br />Religious based facts aside, I can prove noise is the most important part of the data. If we ignored the noise in the temperature record and just focused on the longterm trend we would, of all preposterous things, be forced to conclude the world was warming.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com393tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-36829064046306753142011-04-03T09:54:00.000-07:002011-04-03T11:56:48.027-07:00The IPCC Forecast Is Simply WrongIf you have paid attention to the recent congressional hearing on Climate-Gate you will no doubt have heard that forecasting guru <a href="http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Report%20for%20Congressional%20hearing-R14%20(2)%20armstrong%20update.pdf">Dr. J. Scott Armstrong has proven the IPCC models are outperformed by a simple model</a><br /><br />Armstrong argues: <blockquote>Those involved in the global warming alarm have violated the “simple methods” principle.</blockquote>He recommends that: <blockquote>"To help ensure objectivity, government funding should not be provided for climate-change forecasting. As we have noted, simple methods are appropriate for forecasting for climate change. Large budgets are therefore not necessary."</blockquote>If you doubt Dr Armstrong is a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/">forecasting guru</a> check the testimony:<br /><blockquote>Dr Armstrong ... is the author of Long-range <span style="font-weight:bold;">Forecasting</span>, the creator of <span style="font-weight:bold;">forecasting</span>principles.com, and editor of Principles of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Forecasting</span> (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on <span style="font-weight:bold;">forecasting</span> methods. He is a founder of the Journal of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Forecasting</span>, the International Journal of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Forecasting</span>, and the International Symposium on <span style="font-weight:bold;">Forecasting</span>. He has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on <span style="font-weight:bold;">forecasting</span></blockquote>So yes he's very much involved in forecasting. <br /><blockquote>We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model</span>. Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.</blockquote>This is music to my ears, and the ears to other deniers the Internet wide. At last we have scientific sounding justification for our claims that the experts know less than simple folk. We can figure it out ourselves. Oh they might have fancy equations and computers but what really counts is wild ass guesses from those willing to think out of their armchairs.<br /><br />The conclusion I like to draw is that simple models <span style="font-weight:bold;">always</span> work better than more complex models. Sounds right to me. And of course Armstrong is right, he was after-all the first man on the moon.<br /><br />Glowing recommendations abound. Noone quite understands what Armstrong did, but we share absolute conviction that he's justified our basic dogma:<br /><blockquote>"I have not heard any testimony but am under the impression Scott Armstrong knows a great deal about complex modeling and has rejected it as failed (at least long term modeling)" - <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/31/congressional-hearing-on-climate-change-part-ii/#comment-58539">blog comment</a></blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">An Analysis of Armstrong's validation test of the IPCC forecasting model</span><br /><br />But unlike other denier blogs lets go a bit further and actually try to understand what Armstrong did to demonstrate a simple model beats the IPCC models at making longterm forecasts. This is a technical blog afterall.<br /><br />The validation test Armstrong performed is detailed in his 2009 paper, <a href="http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf">Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making</a>, co-authored by Willie Soon and published in the International Journal of Forecasting (wait where have I heard of that before?).<br /><br />What Armstrong did was to use discredited global temperature data published by the university at the center of Climate Gate. But in this case we can trust the data because it leads to a conclusion we want to believe.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 612px; height: 259px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-style:italic;">Hadcrut3, the temperature data used to test IPCC model and simple benchmark model forecasts.</span><br /><br />Armstrong made a simple benchmark model that forecasts temperature. It is very simple, it just predicts that future temperature will be identical to today's. So his simple benchmark model's 100 year forecast starting from 1851 predicts that the 1951 temperature anomaly will be the same as the 1851 temperature anomaly.<br /><br />Because forecasting single annual anomalies is exactly the kind of thing the IPCC does.<br /><br />Armstrong first tested his benchmark model against IPCC forecasts made in 1992. Unfortunately this way he could only test a 17 year forecast made by the IPCC and he noted that policymakers were more interested in long-term forecasts (eg more like 100 years ahead, not 17):<br /><blockquote>"Policymakers are concerned with long-term climate forecasting, and the ex ante analysis we have described was limited to a small sample of short-horizon projections. To address this limitation, we calculated rolling projections from 1851 to illustrate a proper validation procedure."</blockquote><br />What he really wanted to be able to do was to test something like a 100 year IPCC forecast made in 1851 against the forecast made by his benchmark model. But just how could he obtain 100 year IPCC forecasts made in 1851 when the IPCC didn't even exist in 1851? Armstrong found a simple solution:<br /><br /><blockquote>Dangerous manmade global warming became an issue of public concern after NASA scientist James Hansen testified on the subject to the US Congress on June 23, 1988 (McKibben, 2007), after a 13-year period from 1975 over which global temperature estimates were up more than they were down. The IPCC (2007) authors explained, however, that “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750” (p. 2). There have even been claims that human activity has been causing global warming for at least 5000 years (Bergquist, 2008). <br /><br />It is not unreasonable, then, to suppose, for the purposes of our validation illustration, that scientists in 1850 had noticed that the increasing industrialization of the world was resulting in an exponential growth in “greenhouse gases”, and projected that this would lead to global warming of 0.03 C per year.</blockquote><br />Yes that's right, the IPCC didn't exist in 1851, but we can always imagine what they would have said if they had existed in 1851. After-all it isn't like the 0.03C per year warming rate is based on a complicated model. The IPCC models are simple right? 0.03C/year, wherever that comes from, is clearly based on nothing more than the notion that temperature will go up. 0.3C per decade is just a kind of universal warming rate that any IPCC scientist will eventually fixate on, even if that IPCC scientist exists in 1851.<br /><br />The alternative to making it up would have been to take GCM hindcasts and compare them to HadCRUT. But that's quite involved. The idea here is to take the simpler route. It's simpler just to make shit up. That's one of the principles of forecasting in fact - make shit up.<br /><br />So now lets compare the simple benchmark forecast with the IPCC forecast. At 0.03C warming per year the 1851 IPCC would have predicted the hadcrut 1951 temperature anomaly to be +2.7C, compared to the actual anomaly of -0.17C. Armstrong's simple benchmark model performs much better, predicting a 1951 temperature anomaly of -0.3C.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut_predict.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 612px; height: 554px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/hadcrut_predict.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />The absolute mean error in this case for Armstrong's model is 0.13C error. For the IPCC model it's a massive 2.87C error. The 1851 IPCC loses. <br /><br />So when you next hear that simple models perform better at forecasting than complex IPCC climate models, now you know the technical details behind that fact. Thank god someone with the competence of Armstrong was brought in to testify before congress on such an important issue.Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com411tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6445522679798245375.post-50303387164158696962011-03-31T02:54:00.000-07:002011-04-01T05:31:36.999-07:00A word of caution to the BEST project team<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/logo.jpg"><img style="margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 245px; height: 104px;" src="http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/logo.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />An Open Letter To Professor Richard Muller and Team relating to the <a href="http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index">Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tips and Advice: Learning from past mistakes</span><br /><br />Dear Professor Muller and Team,<br /><br />If you want your Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project to succeed and become the center of attention you need to learn from the vast number of mistakes Hansen and Jones have made with their temperature records. To aid this task I created a point by point list for you.<br /><br />1) Any errors, however inconsequential, will be taken Very Seriously and accusations of fraud will be made.<br /><br />2) If you adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently fiddling the figures whilst cooking the books.<br /><br />3) If you don't adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently failing to account for station biases and UHI.<br /><br />4) Homogenization is what Enron did.<br /><br />5) If you rely on CLIMAT messages for the monthly updates this will cause a sharp station count drop after the first month. If that happens we will accuse you of fraudulently deleting stations to produce warming.<br /><br />6) If you ever modify your algorithm and rerun it over the data so that some past monthly values change, we will accuse you of fraudulently rewriting written history.<br /><br />7) By all means publish all your source code, but we will still accuse you of hiding the methodology for your adjustments.<br /><br />8) If you publish results to your website and errors are found, we will accuse you of a Very Serious Error irregardless of severity (see point #1) and bemoan the press release you made about your results even though you won't remember making any press release about your results.<br /><br />9) With regard to point #8 above, at extra cost and time to yourself you must employ someone to thoroughly check each monthly update before is is published online, even if this delays publication of the results till the end of the month. You might be surprised at this because no-one actually relies on such freshly published data anyway and aren't the many eyes of blog audit better than a single pair of eyes? Well that's irrelevant. See points #1 and #8<br /><br />10) If you don't publish results promptly at the start of the month on the public website, but instead say publish the results to a private site for checks to be performed before release, we will accuse you of engaging in unscientific-like secrecy and massaging the data behind closed doors.<br /><br />11) You can never adjust enough for UHI unless your record shows cooling.<br /><br />12) You better not be using stations at airports. You'll find out why if you do.<br /><br />13) You don't need to adjust for Time of Observation bias. That's the upwards one isn't it? Well we couldn't give a shit about that.<br /><br />14) If any region/station shows a warming trend that doesn't match the raw data, and we can't understand why, we will accuse you of fraud and dismiss the entire record. Don't expect us to have to read anything to understand results.<br /><br />15) You must provide all input datasets on your website. It's no good referencing NOAAs site and saying they "own" the GHCN data for example. I don't want their GHCN raw temperatures file, I want the one on your hard drive which you used for the analysis, even if you claim they are the same. If you don't do this we will accuse you of hiding the data and preventing us checking your results.<br /><br />16) You are to blame for any station data your team uses. If we find out that a station you use is next to an AC Unit, we will conclude you personally planted the thermometer there to deliberately get warming.<br /><br />17) We will treat your record as if no alternative exists. As if your record is the make or break of Something Really Important (see point #1) and we just can't check the results in any other way. <br /><br />18) Always wear a lab coat while running your algorithm. I don't really know about the practicalities of how science is practiced in real life, but you sure as hell better meet the expectations I have gleaned off TV. Especially when this is science that is so important (see point #17).<br /><br />20) A <a href="http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/05/stationary-audit.html">Stationary Audit should be completed prior to and after all work</a>.<br /><br />21) Your work is important (see point #17) so it bears special scrutiny - that's why our role as auditors is so important. <br /><br />22) We don't need any scrutiny because our role isn't important.<br /><br />23) In the unlikely event that I haven't wasted enough of your time forcing you to comply with the above rules, I also demand to see all emails you have sent or will send during the period 1950 to 2050 that contain <a href="http://www.world-english.org/english500.htm">any of these keywords</a><br /><br />Any accusations of fraud and wrong-doing aimed at your team will be initially posted on blogs and in the media but will be eventually compiled by our think-tanks into glossy brochures. We don't check our own claims much. <br /><br />You of course have nothing to lose and a lot to gain in this endeavor! <br /><br />Good Luck, <br />The Auditors<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Update: </span> Additional advice from commenters:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Joel</span><br />24. In the event that you comply with all of the above, we will point out that a mere hundred-odd years of data is irrelevant next to the 4.5 billion year history of Earth. So why do you even bother?Infernohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13782237962383950682noreply@blogger.com177